state-of-mayflower-v-inciples

Mayflower District Court

#state-of-mayflower-v-inciples

This is the start of #state-of-mayflower-v-inciples channel.

shah 2025-01-11 08:01 p.m.

## CR-0057-25 State of Mayflower v. Inciples

shah 2025-01-11 08:01 p.m.

https://trello.com/c/Mv7fVUV3/437-state-of-mayflower-v-inciples

State of Mayflower v. Inciples

What is your ROBLOX username?

Chickem_Temdie

List the defendant(s)

Inciples

List the criminal charges

1.M.S.C § 1302 - Felony Misconduct (Count 1);
1.M.S.C § 1312- Obstruction of Justice (Count 2);
1.M.S.C § 2101- First-degree Murder (Count 3);
1.M.S.C § 1312- Involuntary Manslaughter (Count 4);
1.M.S.C § 1312- Involuntary Manslaught...

Labels

Criminal

shah 2025-01-11 08:02 p.m.

@Krispy Chicken Tender

@Awesome

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-16 03:21 a.m.

@Awesome

your honor, summons?

Krispy Chicken Tender

@Awesome your honor, summons?

Awesome 2025-01-16 03:51 a.m.

My apologies, as I explained in another matter, I’ve only recently got a new monitor, and have been getting used to it.

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-16 03:52 a.m.

Awesome 2025-01-16 03:54 a.m.

I’ll rule on PC and then issue a summons, if appropriate, shortly.

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-18 03:50 a.m.

@Awesome

Your honor?

Krispy Chicken Tender

@Awesome Your honor?

Awesome 2025-01-18 05:18 a.m.

Today or tomorrow.

Awesome

Today or tomorrow.

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-19 10:33 p.m.

Any updates on the ruling?

Krispy Chicken Tender

Any updates on the ruling?

Awesome 2025-01-19 10:46 p.m.

It’ll be today, as I indicated above (for me, that msg was like 4h from a different day, which was the day I had in mind)

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-19 10:50 p.m.

Yea

Awesome 2025-01-20 08:13 a.m.

Right, so, there's two problems: (1) the AOPC is not notarized, and (2) intent transfers, rendering 1.M.S.C § 1312 nonapplicable (since it, by definition, requires "no intent to kill").

Awesome 2025-01-20 08:13 a.m.

@Krispy Chicken Tender

I'll find PC as to all remaining counts, though, unless the State first wishes to remedy those defects.(edited)

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-20 11:46 a.m.

Will remedy. I’ll send new documents by end of day

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-21 06:17 p.m.

The filing website just will not work with me for some reason, but here is remedied versions of aopc and ci

cc: @Awesome

@shah

(edited)

Awesome 2025-01-22 12:30 a.m.

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

All parties are notified that a Mayflower State Magistrate Judge has been appointed to handle all pretrial matters, except those prohibited by 5 M.S.C. 1 §§ 2203.1, et seq., in the above-captioned matter.

@AdamC_2001

will be the presiding Magistrate Judge, while @Awesome is the supervising District Court Judge.

cc: @Krispy Chicken Tender

(edited)

Awesome used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-01-22 12:30 a.m.

Case Modified

@Awesome

has added @AdamC_2001 to the case channel.

Krispy Chicken Tender

The filing website just will not work with me for some reason, but here is remedied versions of aopc and ci cc: @Awesome

@shah

(edited)

Awesome 2025-01-22 11:11 a.m.

cc: @AdamC_2001

AdamC_2001 2025-01-22 08:14 p.m.

Greetings Gents

AdamC_2001 2025-01-22 08:43 p.m.

@Krispy Chicken Tender

You around

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-22 08:45 p.m.

AdamC_2001 2025-01-22 08:48 p.m.

Right well I find Probable Cause on;

AdamC_2001 2025-01-22 08:48 p.m.

(A) 1.M.S.C §1302 Felony misconduct on ONE count,
(B) 1.M.S.C §1312 Obstruction of justice on ONE count,
(C) 1.M.S.C §2101 First-degree murder on ONE count;

AdamC_2001 2025-01-22 08:48 p.m.

I do not find Probable Cause on;
1.M.S.C §2103 Voluntary manslaughter on TWO counts

AdamC_2001 2025-01-22 08:51 p.m.

Due to Transferred Intent Doctrine I do not find Probable Cause

AdamC_2001 2025-01-22 08:51 p.m.

So you have two options

AdamC_2001 2025-01-22 08:51 p.m.

Either drip Voluntary Manslaughter or amend your APOC one more time and if still no PC I'll order the charges dismissal.

AdamC_2001 2025-01-22 08:51 p.m.

drop*

AdamC_2001

Either drip Voluntary Manslaughter or amend your APOC one more time and if still no PC I'll order the charges dismissal.

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-23 02:32 a.m.

Drop the two specified charges right? If no pc is found(edited)

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-23 03:21 a.m.

Refiling documents, website doesn't work because this was done before that was a thing

cc: @AdamC_2001(edited)

Krispy Chicken Tender

Drop the two specified charges right? If no pc is found(edited)

AdamC_2001 2025-01-23 12:49 p.m.

Yes

AdamC_2001 2025-01-23 12:49 p.m.

Ok great I’ll review this

AdamC_2001 2025-01-23 01:43 p.m.

Probable Cause is established on all counts @Krispy Chicken Tender

AdamC_2001 2025-01-23 01:43 p.m.

It's time to summon the defendant.

AdamC_2001 2025-01-23 07:32 p.m.

@Krispy Chicken Tender

Do you have a summons drafted

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-23 07:32 p.m.

I'm going to work i'll send it when I get back

AdamC_2001 2025-01-23 07:34 p.m.

Ensure it does soon we don't want to keep the case waiting for ages.

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-24 02:09 a.m.

cc: @AdamC_2001

Krispy Chicken Tender

cc: @AdamC_2001

AdamC_2001 2025-01-24 12:24 p.m.

Great

Awesome used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-01-24 12:24 p.m.

Case Modified

@Awesome

has added @Honoripedia to the case channel.

AdamC_2001 2025-01-24 12:25 p.m.

Awesome I believe you gotta sign it

Awesome 2025-01-24 12:25 p.m.

Oh, it didn’t have my signature automatically affixed.

Awesome 2025-01-24 12:25 p.m.

That’s annoying.

AdamC_2001 2025-01-24 12:25 p.m.

yea

Awesome 2025-01-24 12:25 p.m.

Normally it should.

Krispy Chicken Tender

cc: @AdamC_2001

AdamC_2001 2025-01-24 12:25 p.m.

Edit the date and have awesomes name signed

AdamC_2001 2025-01-24 12:26 p.m.

then send again

AdamC_2001

then send again

Awesome 2025-01-24 12:26 p.m.

Nah, I’ll do it myself.

AdamC_2001 2025-01-24 12:27 p.m.

Awesome 2025-01-24 12:48 p.m.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NBR8Rc_CHh-0BFNyYpJQOuiExDOY1sx3/view?usp=sharing

Awesome 2025-01-24 12:48 p.m.

cc: @Sheriff of Clark County

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-24 02:59 p.m.

Sorry didn’t know how to add the signature affix pay

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-25 01:30 a.m.

CCSO issued summons but defendant didn't have their dms opened

AdamC_2001 2025-01-25 01:32 a.m.

Good

AdamC_2001 2025-01-25 01:33 a.m.

We can hopefully get arraignment done by this weekend.

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-25 05:54 a.m.

He might get banned before that happens

Awesome 2025-01-25 07:24 a.m.

Defendant was served by Solarlabs, a Deputy of the Clark County Sheriff's Office. He acknowledged the summons, and has since ignored it; as such, a continuous warrant for his arrest has been issued, ordering that he brought before a Mayflower District or Magistrate Judge.

cc: @Krispy Chicken Tender @AdamC_2001

AdamC_2001 2025-01-26 01:16 a.m.

Right

AdamC_2001 2025-01-26 01:16 a.m.

Him failure to show will result in a court appointed attorney.

AdamC_2001 2025-01-26 01:17 a.m.

He has until Sunday at 5pm EST to appear or will be held in absentia and a Public Defender will be appointed

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-26 03:37 a.m.

@AdamC_2001

Your honor, the defendant is currently in a holding cell at mpd in biggest server(edited)

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-26 03:37 a.m.

Due to the AW

Krispy Chicken Tender

Due to the AW

Awesome 2025-01-26 03:55 a.m.

Is he still in custody?

Awesome

Is he still in custody?

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-26 04:02 a.m.

I left the server already, mpd should have sentenced him at this point

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-26 04:03 a.m.

Otherwise they didn't or he ltaad

Krispy Chicken Tender

Otherwise they didn't or he ltaad

Awesome 2025-01-26 04:04 a.m.

They were booked, I believe.

Awesome used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-01-26 04:05 a.m.

Case Modified

@Awesome

has added @Inciples to the case channel.

Awesome 2025-01-26 04:10 a.m.

@Inciples

, for the avoidance of any doubt, you are not permitted to (1) at any point during the pendency of this matter, leave the server; or (2) fail to appear before the Court as ordered. Do either and a continuous warrant for your arrest will (again) be issued; the Court also reserves the right to impose sanctions as it deems fit and proper.

Awesome 2025-01-26 04:10 a.m.

@AdamC_2001

All yours.

Inciples 2025-01-26 04:10 a.m.

Hello

Inciples

Hello

AdamC_2001 2025-01-26 11:13 a.m.

Hello Mr.Inciples do you have an attorney

Inciples 2025-01-26 11:24 a.m.

Sup

AdamC_2001

Hello Mr.Inciples do you have an attorney

Inciples 2025-01-26 11:24 a.m.

Nope

Inciples

Nope

AdamC_2001 2025-01-26 11:31 a.m.

Do you want an opportunity to find someone or do you just want a public defender

Inciples 2025-01-26 11:32 a.m.

I would like to seek one

AdamC_2001 2025-01-26 11:33 a.m.

Very well you may find one but do not take forever

AdamC_2001 2025-01-26 11:34 a.m.

Once you've found one ping me who it is and he/she will get placed into this case channel.

Inciples

I would like to seek one

AdamC_2001 2025-01-26 04:08 p.m.

Any luck?

Inciples 2025-01-26 11:19 p.m.

I need a public defender

AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 12:51 a.m.

Very well

Inciples

I need a public defender

AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 12:51 a.m.

There’s some law firms you can find to help with criminal defense

AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 12:51 a.m.

But I can get you a PD too they’re decent themselves

AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 12:54 a.m.

so you going with a pd?

Inciples 2025-01-27 01:21 a.m.

Yes

AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 01:42 a.m.

AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 02:04 a.m.

@Inciples

I got you a public defender @leoisnoob

Inciples 2025-01-27 02:05 a.m.

Thanks

leoisnoob 2025-01-27 02:06 a.m.

Hello your Honor

AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 02:07 a.m.

Mr.Davie is to represent the defendant in this criminal matter
cc @Krispy Chicken Tender

@Awesome

AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 02:07 a.m.

Let's get a plan for arraignment

AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 02:07 a.m.

What works for both parties

AdamC_2001

Let's get a plan for arraignment

leoisnoob 2025-01-27 02:10 a.m.

preferably over discord, i start school again tmrw so will have reduced activity

leoisnoob 2025-01-27 02:10 a.m.

@Inciples

are you able to add me sir

Inciples 2025-01-27 02:12 a.m.

leoisnoob 2025-01-27 02:17 a.m.

@AdamC_2001

Have we done PC

AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 02:18 a.m.

yes

AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 02:18 a.m.

pc is established

leoisnoob 2025-01-27 02:18 a.m.

Can I request a hearing on that

leoisnoob 2025-01-27 02:18 a.m.

Bruh

leoisnoob 2025-01-27 02:18 a.m.

The Prosecutor is citing Californian case law in his charging document

leoisnoob 2025-01-27 02:19 a.m.

Which frankly has no relevance in this jurisdiction

leoisnoob 2025-01-27 02:19 a.m.

Can we get a hearing on probable cause @AdamC_2001

leoisnoob 2025-01-27 02:19 a.m.

Before he's arraigned

AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 02:24 a.m.

Citing outside of state laws is considered persuasive authority which can be used to support their reasoning of charges the courts are not bound to follow it but it gives insight. If you wish to have a PC hearing I'll gladly ensure fair game with the State.

AdamC_2001

Citing outside of state laws is considered persuasive authority which can be used to support their reasoning of charges the courts are not bound to follow it but it gives insight. ...

leoisnoob 2025-01-27 02:28 a.m.

The senate has legislated what intent is which means that Californian common law can't be applied
The Defendant's intent must be directed toward the actual victim in question, and there is no legal basis under Mayflower law to transfer intent from the intended target to a bystander.

leoisnoob

The senate has legislated what intent is which means that Californian common law can't be applied The Defendant's intent must be directed toward the actual victim in question, and...

Awesome 2025-01-27 10:19 a.m.

Alright, (1) transferred intent is well entrenched in common law, and dates back to as early as 1576, in which it was said, “[I]t is every man’s business to foresee what wrong[s] or mischief may happen from that which he does with an ill intention, and it shall be no excuse for him to say that he intended to kill another, and not the person killed, for if a man of malice prepense shoots an arrow at another with an intent to kill him, and a person to whom he bore no malice is killed by it, this shall be murder in him[.]” R. v. Saunders, 2 Plow 473, 475 (1576); and (2) it is beyond dispute that, where common law doctrines are well-established, “courts may take it as a given that [the legislative branch] has legislated with an expectation that the common law principle will apply,” Astoria Fed. Sav. Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 108 (1991), absent “clear and explicit” statutory cues to the contrary. Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority v. Chesapeake Potomac Telephone Co. of Va., 464 U.S. 30, 35–36 (1983).(edited)

Awesome 2025-01-27 10:25 a.m.

I’ll leave it up to @AdamC_2001 whether a probable cause hearing should be held, but any contention that transferred intent, as a common law doctrine, does not govern, is simply misplaced.

AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 01:26 p.m.

After further review I'm standing on my decision to establish probable cause. We will move to arraignment.

@leoisnoob

@Krispy Chicken Tender

AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 01:30 p.m.

When is both parties available to have arraignment?

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-27 05:50 p.m.

Tonight maybe

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-27 10:11 p.m.

Defense and I are still discussing potential terms

AdamC_2001

When is both parties available to have arraignment?

leoisnoob 2025-01-28 04:44 a.m.

I believe we've come to an agreement so whenever he's drafted that up we can discuss scheduling arraignment

Awesome

Alright, (1) transferred intent is well entrenched in common law, and dates back to as early as 1576, in which it was said, “[I]t is every man’s business to foresee what wrong[...(edited)

leoisnoob 2025-01-28 05:02 a.m.

Your Honor, you're citing British precedent from the 16th century, it isn't binding in this Court

leoisnoob

Your Honor, you're citing British precedent from the 16th century, it isn't binding in this Court

Awesome 2025-01-28 05:09 a.m.

It is persuasive authority; however, the Court finds no basis to deviate from the conclusion of every court to have considered the issue.

Krispy Chicken Tender

Refiling documents, website doesn't work because this was done before that was a thing cc: @AdamC_2001(edited)

leoisnoob 2025-01-28 06:40 a.m.

Motion to dismiss counts 4 and 5 of the Information
CC: @Awesome

@AdamC_2001

@Krispy Chicken Tender

I would also like to assert my client's right to a speedy trial, and therefore ask that no further amendments of the Information be permitted. The State has submitted 3 CIs in total, allowing more and more superseding indictments risks a violation of my client's 6th amendment rights.

(I'm not sure how PC was established, this is a blatant error and should not have been allowed to proceed from the start)

Awesome 2025-01-28 06:53 a.m.

I’ll dismiss the duplicative counts, but I’ll deny your request that “no further amendments of the [Criminal] Information be permitted;” Mayfl R. Crim. P. 7(5)(1) plainly and unequivocally states that, “[a]fter notice to the defendant, a matter of form or substance in an information may be amended at any time before the date the trial on the merits commences,” subject only to the leave of the Court, unless, over the defendant’s objection, the amended information “charges the defendant with an additional or different offense[,] or if the substantial rights of the defendant are prejudiced.” Mayfl. R. Crim. P. 7(5)(3).

Awesome 2025-01-28 06:54 a.m.

cc: @Krispy Chicken Tender / @leoisnoob @Inciples / @AdamC_2001

Awesome

I’ll dismiss the duplicative counts, but I’ll deny your request that “no further amendments of the [Criminal] Information be permitted;” Mayfl R. Crim. P. 7(5)(1) plainly and unequ...

Awesome 2025-01-28 06:56 a.m.

It’s a typo, as the AOPC makes clear.

Awesome

I’ll dismiss the duplicative counts, but I’ll deny your request that “no further amendments of the [Criminal] Information be permitted;” Mayfl R. Crim. P. 7(5)(1) plainly and unequ...

leoisnoob 2025-01-28 07:07 a.m.

"or if the substantial rights of the defendant are prejudiced"; the State has had ample time between when the case was filed and now. They have filed 3 separate superseding CIs in total. Allowing more is just going to extend this case more and more and will start to impede on my clients constitutional rights. This would not have been an issue if the State had just gotten it right from the start.

Awesome

It’s a typo, as the AOPC makes clear.

leoisnoob 2025-01-28 07:07 a.m.

I disagree. There are 2 entire charges that are falsified. It is not merely a typo

leoisnoob

I disagree. There are 2 entire charges that are falsified. It is not merely a typo

Awesome 2025-01-28 07:11 a.m.

That’s fine. Counts 4 and 5 relate to the alleged killings of “32a” and “BlackMinghetti,” respectively; the CI mistakenly refers to both of those individuals as “JaroCycle.”

Awesome

That’s fine. Counts 4 and 5 relate to the alleged killings of “32a” and “BlackMinghetti,” respectively; the CI mistakenly refers to both of those individuals as “JaroCycle.”

Awesome 2025-01-28 07:11 a.m.

The AOPC makes this plain.

leoisnoob

"or if the substantial rights of the defendant are prejudiced"; the State has had ample time between when the case was filed and now. They have filed 3 separate superseding CIs in ...

Awesome 2025-01-28 07:13 a.m.

I’m not going to enter an order barring amendments, no matter how insubstantial, simply because you proffer that, in your view, further amendments “risk[] a violation of your client’s [constitutional] rights.”

Awesome 2025-01-28 07:14 a.m.

You can, of course, object to an amended information, as the rules prescribe.(edited)

Awesome

I’m not going to enter an order barring amendments, no matter how insubstantial, simply because you proffer that, in your view, further amendments “risk[] a violation of your clien...

leoisnoob 2025-01-28 07:17 a.m.

Would you not agree with me that if the State continues to file superseding charging instruments that the idea of a fair and speedy trial comes into question?

leoisnoob

Would you not agree with me that if the State continues to file superseding charging instruments that the idea of a fair and speedy trial comes into question?

Awesome 2025-01-28 07:18 a.m.

I agree that it can be raised, but I’m not entering an order preemptively, without knowing the degree of the amendment(s).(edited)

leoisnoob 2025-01-28 07:18 a.m.

Understood

leoisnoob 2025-01-28 07:18 a.m.

Thank you your honor

leoisnoob 2025-01-28 07:21 a.m.

Just an update for you @Awesome - the Prosecutor and myself are in communication regarding a plea deal however not sure how the dismissal of the two charges will impact on that process

leoisnoob

Just an update for you @Awesome - the Prosecutor and myself are in communication regarding a plea deal however not sure how the dismissal of the two charges will impac...

Awesome 2025-01-28 07:23 a.m.

Alright. Keep the Court updated.

Inciples 2025-01-28 02:39 p.m.

@Awesome

@AdamC_2001

I have found a much more suitable lawyer to aid me in my case

Inciples 2025-01-28 02:40 p.m.

And therefore I would like to dismiss the public defender

AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 02:41 p.m.

And who would that be.

AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 02:42 p.m.

I can assure you the Public Defenders office is filled with decent attorneys dont let the name and irl rep fool you.

AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 02:42 p.m.

And arnt you in the mist of a plea deal?>

Inciples 2025-01-28 02:47 p.m.

I want my counsel of choice

AdamC_2001

And who would that be.

Inciples 2025-01-28 02:49 p.m.

@impactiii

Inciples

@impactiii

AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 02:51 p.m.

Okay per the 6th amendment you have the right for counsel for assistance. Next time make it clear you wanted someone from private practice before wanting a Public Defender.

AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 02:53 p.m.

@leoisnoob

Your client has let you go. Thank you for assisting and picking up this case. God bless.

AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 02:54 p.m.

Defense are we still attempting for a deal or we moving on to arraignment?

Awesome used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-01-28 02:59 p.m.

Case Modified

@Awesome

has added @impactiii to the case channel.

Awesome used

/remove

clerkFlow Bot2025-01-28 02:59 p.m.

Case Modified

@Awesome

has removed @leoisnoob from the case channel.

Inciples 2025-01-28 02:59 p.m.

Thank you

AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:00 p.m.

I did that already lol

AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:00 p.m.

But it's okay

AdamC_2001

But it's okay

Awesome 2025-01-28 03:01 p.m.

Oh, I wasn’t aware; I prefer @clerkFlow because it logs the change.(edited)

AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:01 p.m.

Oh ok

AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:02 p.m.

I'll use it next time

AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:03 p.m.

TAKE NOTICE

The defendant has fired his Public Defender and moved to hire Mr.Sadoimpacto and has filed his NOA before the court.

cc @Krispy Chicken Tender

AdamC_2001

Okay per the 6th amendment you have the right for counsel for assistance. Next time make it clear you wanted someone from private practice before wanting a Public Defender.

Inciples 2025-01-28 03:04 p.m.

My apologies

impactiii 2025-01-28 03:12 p.m.

@Awesome

Afternoon. Was there an SI filed on this case? Also, who is the prosecutor?

impactiii 2025-01-28 03:13 p.m.

@AdamC_2001

AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:14 p.m.

Chickem_Temdie is the SA

AdamC_2001

Chickem_Temdie is the SA

impactiii 2025-01-28 03:14 p.m.

And was there a superseding information filed?

Krispy Chicken Tender

Refiling documents, website doesn't work because this was done before that was a thing cc: @AdamC_2001(edited)

AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:15 p.m.

This is the only information he offered at this time.

impactiii 2025-01-28 03:15 p.m.

I see at least one count was dismissed

impactiii

I see at least one count was dismissed

Awesome 2025-01-28 03:16 p.m.

Two duplicative counts, on the motion of the previous counselor, were dismissed; however, it is worth noting that they were only duplicative because of a typo.(edited)

Awesome

That’s fine. Counts 4 and 5 relate to the alleged killings of “32a” and “BlackMinghetti,” respectively; the CI mistakenly refers to both of those individuals as “JaroCycle.”

Awesome 2025-01-28 03:16 p.m.

Awesome

Two duplicative counts, on the motion of the previous counselor, were dismissed; however, it is worth noting that they were only duplicative because of a typo.(edited)

impactiii 2025-01-28 03:21 p.m.

So Counts 4 and 5 are dismissed?

impactiii

So Counts 4 and 5 are dismissed?

Awesome 2025-01-28 03:23 p.m.

Well, they’re duplicative due to a typo, so yes, but that doesn’t preclude future amendment or a SI.

Awesome

Well, they’re duplicative due to a typo, so yes, but that doesn’t preclude future amendment or a SI.

impactiii 2025-01-28 03:24 p.m.

Okay. What are the deadlines for pretrial?

impactiii 2025-01-28 03:24 p.m.

And discovery

impactiii 2025-01-28 03:24 p.m.

Are we past PC?

AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:24 p.m.

We havent gotten to arraignment yet

impactiii 2025-01-28 03:24 p.m.

Waive and enter plea of not guilty

impactiii 2025-01-28 03:24 p.m.

Do you want it in writing?

AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:24 p.m.

yes please

impactiii 2025-01-28 03:26 p.m.

WAIVER OF DEFENDANT'S PRESENCE AT ARRAIGNMENT AND ENTRY OF NOT GUILTY PLEA

CC: @AdamC_2001 @Krispy Chicken Tender

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-28 03:27 p.m.

I’m in class I’ll respond in a few hours

impactiii 2025-01-28 03:31 p.m.

@AdamC_2001

My ask is a 10-day pretrial window, mandatory disclosure of discovery materials within five days, a two-day deadline for filing amendments to the information, and an immediate Brady/Giglio order requiring disclosure of all relevant evidence.

AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:32 p.m.

There's nothing to respond to and as such the court grants the defense's waive of arraignment and enters a plea of Not Guilty on all charges.

AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:33 p.m.

@Inciples

Do you as the defendant agree to waive your arraignment?

Inciples 2025-01-28 03:33 p.m.

Yes

AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:33 p.m.

Very well

AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:33 p.m.

Not Guilty is entered on all counts

impactiii

@AdamC_2001 My ask is a 10-day pretrial window, mandatory disclosure of discovery materials within five days, a two-day deadline for filing amendments to the information,...

impactiii 2025-01-28 03:33 p.m.

I'm sure you understand the second part because it is such a pain where they literally wait until the last minute to disclose everything

Awesome 2025-01-28 03:40 p.m.

PAPERLESS ORDER GOVERNING PRETRIAL AND DISCOVERY

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that, barring extension for good cause or other unforeseen delay:
- (1) the pre-trial window will close Friday, February 7, 2025 at 3:40 p.m., 5 months ago;
- (2) in accordance with Mayfl. D. Ct. 3(8), pre-trial motions will be due forty-eight (48) hours prior to the close of the pretrial window;
- (3) a pre-trial conference is scheduled for Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 3:40 p.m., 5 months ago, prior to which the parties shall disclose a draft of the exhibits and witnesses, if any, that they intend to rely on;
- (4) on or before Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 3:40 p.m., 5 months ago, the State shall disclose to the defense any undisclosed material deemed exculpatory or potentially exculpatory — that is, evidence that favors the defendant or casts doubt on the State's case — pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963);
- The State is reminded that this obligation is continuing in nature, as per Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 60 (1987), and failure to disclose Brady material in a timely manner may incur consequences, including, but not limited to, exclusion of evidence, dismissal of the information, and sanctions;
- (5) motions in limine are due seventy-two (72) hours prior to trial, with any oppositions due twenty-four (24) hours thereafter; and
- (6) trial briefs, if any, are due forty-eight (48) hours prior to trial.

/s/ AwesomePIays

Mayflower District Judge

cc: @impactiii @Inciples / @Krispy Chicken Tender / @AdamC_2001

Awesome 2025-01-28 03:42 p.m.

A trial date will be set at or after the pre-trial conference.

impactiii 2025-01-28 03:42 p.m.

SI deadline?

impactiii 2025-01-28 03:43 p.m.

24 or 48 hour preferably so I have time to review substance

impactiii

SI deadline?

Awesome 2025-01-28 03:44 p.m.

That’s a separate order, but those will be due, unless good cause is shown, on or before Friday, January 31, 2025 at 3:40 p.m..

Awesome 2025-01-28 03:49 p.m.

I’ll turn it back over to @AdamC_2001 now.

krabz pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:36 p.m.

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:00 a.m.

MR. INCIPLES’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION BASED ON SUPREMACY CLAUSE IMMUNITY

CC: @Awesome @Krispy Chicken Tender

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:00 a.m.

MR. INCIPLES’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION BASED ON THE UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENT OF STATE ATTORNEY CHICKEM_TEMDIE

CC: @Awesome @Krispy Chicken Tender

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:01 a.m.

MR. INCIPLES’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION BASED ON VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT

CC: @Awesome @Krispy Chicken Tender

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:01 a.m.

MR. INCIPLES’ MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE AND TWO FOR FAILURE TO CHARGE CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE OFFENSES

CC: @Awesome @Krispy Chicken Tender

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-29 03:12 a.m.

Will send responses based on the judge's approval of motions

Awesome 2025-01-29 10:35 a.m.

PAPERLESS ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON SIXTH AMENDMENT

THIS CAUSE

is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Based on Violation of the Sixth Amendment.

Defendant’s Motion rehashes, verbatim, arguments severally rejected prior by this Court, see, e.g., State of Mayflower v. nexuvz, No. CR-0032-24, Ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Mayfl. Dist. Ct. 2024). Defendant posits that he has a right to a jury trial, but ignores both the operational, logistical realities of a “R[oblox] community like ours,” State of Mayflower v. TrexeoDev, No. 01-08, 12 (Mayfl. Sup. Ct. 2024) (Cabot, J., dissenting), and countervailing precedent, such as Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 69 (1970), which held that a defendant has a right to trial by jury only “where imprisonment for more than six months is authorized.”

IT IS, THEREFORE, HEREBY: ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED

that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Based on Violation of the Sixth Amendment be, and it hereby is, DENIED IN FULL.

DONE AND ORDERED

in Chambers at Mersea, Mayflower, January 30, 2024.

/s/ AwesomePIays

Mayflower District Judge

cc: @impactiii @Inciples / @Krispy Chicken Tender / @AdamC_2001

(edited)

impactiii 2025-01-29 10:36 a.m.

3 more to go

impactiii

MR. INCIPLES’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION BASED ON THE UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENT OF STATE ATTORNEY CHICKEM_TEMDIE CC: @Awesome

@Krispy Chicken Tender

impactiii 2025-01-29 10:45 a.m.

@Awesome

Am I able to ask for arguments on this one?

impactiii

MR. INCIPLES’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION BASED ON SUPREMACY CLAUSE IMMUNITY CC: @Awesome

@Krispy Chicken Tender

Awesome 2025-01-29 10:53 a.m.

You haven’t prima facie demonstrated that the conduct leading to the state charge was within the Defendant’s scope of his official duties, and in your own motion, you acknowledge that an officer is not immune if he acts with criminal intent or malice, both of which are alleged here.

impactiii 2025-01-29 10:53 a.m.

I replied to a different one

impactiii 2025-01-29 10:53 a.m.

Not to the one you’re talking about

impactiii

I replied to a different one

Awesome 2025-01-29 10:54 a.m.

No, I’m trying to understand how it is that you believe that the Defendant’s actions are immune from prosecution in state courts.(edited)

impactiii

@Awesome Am I able to ask for arguments on this one?

Awesome 2025-01-29 10:54 a.m.

I’ll review this shortly.

Awesome

No, I’m trying to understand how it is that you believe that the Defendant’s actions are immune from prosecution in state courts.(edited)

impactiii 2025-01-29 10:59 a.m.

Intent isn’t relevant to the immunity inquiry. Even if it was, it wouldn’t matter. Did Deputy Marshal Neagle mean to kill David Terry? Yes. Did Lou Horiuchi mean to kill Vicki Weaver? Yes. Both of those cases were dismissed in state court. And Inciples did so while acting under authority of federal law (just like Deputy Neagle and Horiuchi)—which the information recognizes and repeats over and over. It literally explicitly references that he was acting under color of federal law at the time he “committed” those offenses and did so in the interest of furthering his authority as a federal law enforcement officer

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:01 a.m.

Neagle was also charged with murder

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:01 a.m.

Which, as you said to me, also alleges intent and malice

impactiii

Intent isn’t relevant to the immunity inquiry. Even if it was, it wouldn’t matter. Did Deputy Marshal Neagle mean to kill David Terry? Yes. Did Lou Horiuchi mean to kill Vicki Weav...

Awesome 2025-01-29 11:02 a.m.

In your own motion, you posit otherwise.

Awesome 2025-01-29 11:02 a.m.

Awesome

Click to see attachment.

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:04 a.m.

You need to read further. I clearly delineate between allegations in the information as to what is “malice and criminal intent” versus what he actually did which was furthering the interests of federal law enforcement and acting under color of federal law. That’s where the immunity inquiry comes in

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:04 a.m.

Even if they allege malice, like they did in Neagle’s case, if he did so to further federal policy then he is immune

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:05 a.m.

That’s the question

impactiii

You need to read further. I clearly delineate between allegations in the information as to what is “malice and criminal intent” versus what he actually did which was furthering the...

Awesome 2025-01-29 11:05 a.m.

You haven’t prima facie demonstrated that the conduct leading to the state charge was within the Defendant’s scope of his official duties.

Awesome 2025-01-29 11:05 a.m.

My point was in tandem w/ this.

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:06 a.m.

Well what would you need to demonstrate that

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:06 a.m.

The information itself recognizes he was in the scope of his duties at the time

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:07 a.m.

So even the State doesn’t contest that fact

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:07 a.m.

If he was off-duty… and just walked around shooting people on the sidewalk. Then sure. This wouldn’t be a question at all

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:08 a.m.

But he was actively in his role as a federal law enforcement officer and furthering federal policy

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:08 a.m.

As the state itself recognizes

impactiii

So even the State doesn’t contest that fact

Awesome 2025-01-29 11:08 a.m.

Counselor, let me get this straight: you are suggesting that your client was acting “in furtherance of his federal duties” when he is alleged to have shot a suspect, one of his employees, to break them out of state custody?

Awesome 2025-01-29 11:09 a.m.

and the officer, no less.

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:09 a.m.

The whole point of the immunity inquiry under the supremacy clause is to shield federal officers from fear of retaliation by state officials

impactiii

The whole point of the immunity inquiry under the supremacy clause is to shield federal officers from fear of retaliation by state officials

Awesome 2025-01-29 11:10 a.m.

You still haven’t shown that the conduct leading to the state charges was within the scope or in furtherance of his federal duties.

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:12 a.m.

He was trying to free his subordinate from state custody who, by the way, should’ve been shielded from any state action as well

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:12 a.m.

He had the authority to do that

Awesome 2025-01-29 11:12 a.m.

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:13 a.m.

It sounds ridiculous but that’s literally the law. Neagle is a ridiculous case. But that’s the law. With due respect, this case doesn’t belong in state court

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:14 a.m.

Who imagined a Deputy Marshal would get away with murdering a state Chief Justice lol?

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:14 a.m.

But that’s what the law says. Because Neagle did so in the furtherance of his federal duties

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:14 a.m.

Just as Inciples

impactiii

But that’s what the law says. Because Neagle did so in the furtherance of his federal duties

Awesome 2025-01-29 11:14 a.m.

You still haven’t identified what federal duty he was acting in furtherance of.

Awesome

You still haven’t shown that the conduct leading to the state charges was within the scope or in furtherance of his federal duties.

Awesome 2025-01-29 11:15 a.m.

As here.

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:17 a.m.

To protect his colleagues from the deterrence of state officials within the scope of his responsibilities as Chief Postal Inspector. And again, the information does not contest that he was acting within the scope of his federal duties

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:17 a.m.

They actually allege that he was acting within that scope

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:18 a.m.

When reviewing the record at this stage, this court is not allowed to look deeper than the allegations in the informations. Everything is accepted as true. So the fact that the stage alleges that he was acting within the scope of his federal duties is accepted as true.

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:18 a.m.

Anything else is reserved for trial

impactiii

When reviewing the record at this stage, this court is not allowed to look deeper than the allegations in the informations. Everything is accepted as true. So the fact that the sta...

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:18 a.m.

the state*

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:19 a.m.

All factual rebutting and analysis is reserved for trial

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:20 a.m.

Questions of law, like this one, are reserved for pretrial

impactiii

When reviewing the record at this stage, this court is not allowed to look deeper than the allegations in the informations. Everything is accepted as true. So the fact that the sta...

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:20 a.m.

impactiii

They actually allege that he was acting within that scope

Awesome 2025-01-29 11:20 a.m.

No, they allege that he exceeded the scope of his duties — hence the charge for Felony Misconduct.

Awesome

No, they allege that he exceeded the scope of his duties — hence the charge for Felony Misconduct.

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:22 a.m.

Even then, the effect of that is curtailed by the fact that they allege he was acting under federal authority. And I have reservations about applying state-law peace officer regulations to a federal official who is not governed by those regulations

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:22 a.m.

That would’ve been my next question

impactiii

Even then, the effect of that is curtailed by the fact that they allege he was acting under federal authority. And I have reservations about applying state-law peace officer regula...

Awesome 2025-01-29 11:23 a.m.

Again, you haven’t identified what federal authority he was acting under.

Awesome 2025-01-29 11:24 a.m.

Without that, I’m having a hard time seeing your Motion as anything but borderline frivolous.

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:25 a.m.

His authority as a postal inspector. Do you want statutes? I’d also like to note that there is a recognized discretionary authority in these cases when it comes to their authorities

impactiii

His authority as a postal inspector. Do you want statutes? I’d also like to note that there is a recognized discretionary authority in these cases when it comes to their authoritie...

Awesome 2025-01-29 11:26 a.m.

Yes, but the test is whether he was acting in furtherance of his federal duties when the conduct leading to the state charges occurred.

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:27 a.m.

Give me an example of what you would consider furthering that, and I can work with it. We’re just not on the same page

impactiii

Give me an example of what you would consider furthering that, and I can work with it. We’re just not on the same page

Awesome 2025-01-29 11:27 a.m.

I am having a hard time seeing how it is a federal employee’s duty to allegedly take the law into his own hands and break his subordinate out of state custody.

Awesome 2025-01-29 11:28 a.m.

If your client believed that he was being unlawfully held, he could submit a motion for habeas corpus, no?

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:28 a.m.

They weren’t supposed to have arrested his subordinate anyway. They were interfering with a federal mission.

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:29 a.m.

He was not obliged to consider any state law barring him from doing so

impactiii

They weren’t supposed to have arrested his subordinate anyway. They were interfering with a federal mission.

Awesome 2025-01-29 11:29 a.m.

And what federal mission would that be?

Awesome

And what federal mission would that be?

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:29 a.m.

Furthering the law enforcement duties of the postal inspection service. Need I provide examples?

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:29 a.m.

They were there on federal mission

Awesome 2025-01-29 11:30 a.m.

Let’s put that aside for a moment — even if his subordinate was being “unlawfully arrested,” how is it your client’s job to allegedly forcefully break them out of state custody?

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:45 a.m.

Because they were interfering with the federal mission. Did Lou Horiuchi want to kill Vicki Weaver? No, but he did so because she was interfering with a federal law enforcement operation. And he did so with the intent to kill her. But that case was dismissed in state court for the very reason this one should be as well: Inciples cannot be prosecuted in State court under Supremacy Clause immunity.

Federal law enforcement officers have a duty to protect other federal employees—including federal law enforcement—and that duty extends to their affirmative duty to intervene to prevent abuse of power by other law enforcement officers (even the state law enforcement officers should’ve acted to stop the arrest of the postal inspector), especially here when the state was attempting to curtail a federal mission.

We have seen similar scenarios to this one in post-civil war history where swaths state militias arrested federal troops merely for acting under federal authority. Those troops had to be “broken out.” The same followed when in the early 1900s, Mississippi arrested several internal revenue agents only for the U.S. Marshals to “break them out.” Observance of state law is not required of federal agents when acting under federal authority, which, I will say again, is exactly what the State avers to in their information. They do not contest Inciples was acting under color of federal law. And that allegation is accepted as true at this stage—no factual rebutting may be brought against it until trial.

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:46 a.m.

swaths of*

impactiii 2025-01-29 11:51 a.m.

And federal agents aren’t required to observe state law when on federal mission. Clearly no one contests being on the postal inspector team counts as being on federal mission—if we want to get technical

impactiii

Because they were interfering with the federal mission. Did Lou Horiuchi want to kill Vicki Weaver? No, but he did so because she was interfering with a federal law enforcement o...

Awesome 2025-01-29 12:02 p.m.

Ok, so, Idaho v. Horiuchi was reversed en banc by the Ninth Circuit, whom noted that “materials questions of fact [were] in dispute which, if resolved against [the defendant][,] would strip him of immunity.” 253 F.3d 359, 374 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc), vacated as moot en banc, 266 F.3d 979.(edited)

Awesome 2025-01-29 12:06 p.m.

I’m going to deny the Motion, at this stage, because (1) you have failed to identify, with particularity, what federal duty your client was acting in furtherance of when the conduct occasioning the state charge took place, and (2) there are material questions of fact in dispute which, if resolved against your client, would strip him of immunity. Cf.

Id.

at 374.

Awesome

Ok, so, Idaho v. Horiuchi was reversed en banc by the Ninth Circuit, whom noted that “materials questions of fact [were] in dispute which, if resolved against [the defendant][,...(edited)

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:07 p.m.

I don’t think you understand

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:07 p.m.

That’s the purpose of supremacy clause immunity

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:07 p.m.

It shields them from prosecution in state court even in Horiuchi’s case where the material facts were against him

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:08 p.m.

That’s literally why I relied on it

impactiii

It shields them from prosecution in state court even in Horiuchi’s case where the material facts were against him

Awesome 2025-01-29 12:08 p.m.

Uh, no, it doesn’t.

Awesome 2025-01-29 12:08 p.m.

The Ninth Circuit literally reversed.

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:08 p.m.

I have to ctrl + f that case when I get to my computer. But he never was convicted

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:08 p.m.

Never went to trial

impactiii

I have to ctrl + f that case when I get to my computer. But he never was convicted

Awesome 2025-01-29 12:08 p.m.

Because.. the prosecutor dropped the charges.

Awesome 2025-01-29 12:09 p.m.

Not because a court dismissed them.

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:09 p.m.

Again, give me some time to go back and read it and I’ll answer that

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:10 p.m.

Wait you cited the wrong thing

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:10 p.m.

The ninth circuit affirmed the district court

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:10 p.m.

“We affirm”

Awesome 2025-01-29 12:11 p.m.

No, a three judge panel affirmed; the entire Circuit, en banc, reversed.

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:11 p.m.

“Horiuchi removed the prosecution to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The district court dismissed the charge on the ground that the Supremacy Clause protected Horiuchi from prosecution because the criminal case sought to punish Horiuchi for actions taken in pursuit of his duties as a federal law enforcement officer. We affirm.”

impactiii

“Horiuchi removed the prosecution to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The district court dismissed the charge on the ground that the Supremacy Clause protected Hor...

Awesome 2025-01-29 12:12 p.m.

Again, a three judge panel affirmed; the entire Circuit, en banc, reversed the panel.

impactiii

“Horiuchi removed the prosecution to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The district court dismissed the charge on the ground that the Supremacy Clause protected Hor...

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:12 p.m.

That is the circuit court’s ruling though

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:12 p.m.

It’s at the very top

impactiii

That is the circuit court’s ruling though

Awesome 2025-01-29 12:12 p.m.

No, it’s a three judge panel’s.

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:13 p.m.

Are you citing the 2001 case?

Awesome 2025-01-29 12:13 p.m.

Correct.

impactiii

Are you citing the 2001 case?

Awesome 2025-01-29 12:13 p.m.

2001 is in the citation.

Awesome

2001 is in the citation.

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:20 p.m.

That opinion was vacated later as moot but I’ll concede

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:20 p.m.

Meaning it’s basically dicta

impactiii

Meaning it’s basically dicta

Awesome 2025-01-29 12:21 p.m.

It’s still persuasive, either way.

Awesome 2025-01-29 12:21 p.m.

It was the opinion of the Court en banc.(edited)

Awesome

It was the opinion of the Court en banc.(edited)

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:22 p.m.

Moving to the other two?

Awesome

I’m going to deny the Motion, at this stage, because (1) you have failed to identify, with particularity, what federal duty your client was acting in furtherance of when the conduc...

Awesome 2025-01-29 12:23 p.m.

This remains the decision of the Court.

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:25 p.m.

No I’m asking about the other two motions

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:25 p.m.

There’s 4

impactiii

There’s 4

Awesome 2025-01-29 12:26 p.m.

Oh, I’m going to wait for those remaining 2 to be briefed.

Awesome

Oh, I’m going to wait for those remaining 2 to be briefed.

impactiii 2025-01-29 12:31 p.m.

Deadline?

impactiii

Deadline?

Awesome 2025-01-29 12:35 p.m.

As Mayfl. D. Ct. 3(9).(edited)

Awesome

As Mayfl. D. Ct. 3(9).(edited)

Awesome 2025-01-29 12:41 p.m.

So, on or before Friday, January 31, 2025 at 12:00 a.m., 5 months ago, but I’m inclined to grant an extension if the State requests such, due to the voluminous nature and depth of the two motions.(edited)

Awesome 2025-01-29 12:42 p.m.

cc: @Krispy Chicken Tender

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-29 12:49 p.m.

Ill have responses in by today

impactiii

MR. INCIPLES’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION BASED ON THE UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENT OF STATE ATTORNEY CHICKEM_TEMDIE CC: @Awesome

@Krispy Chicken Tender

impactiii 2025-01-29 01:00 p.m.

The appointment one is going to be interesting because there was a similar issue to this one raised where the real life U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel's "creation" (paralleled to our Public Integrity Office, because the special counsel fortunately does exist here by law, but not the PIO) was rejected because the statute "authorizing" it's creation was super broad—just like ours (we basically copy the same text of the irl DOJ statutes, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, and 533)—and did not explicitly establish the Office of Special Counsel. Instead, the DOJ relied on it's own self-promulgated regulations which were created under Title 5 of the U.S. Code. But again, those are not the type of law that can create an office; they're internal regulations.

Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion in Trump v. United States shot down the authority of the Special Counsel, and Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the entirety of the Florida prosecution against Trump because of the OSC appointment issue. Judges and Justices have been fighting the OSC since the 1980s with Morrison v. Olson, although that one was pertinent to the Independent Counsel Act which expired in the 1990s. Still, Justice Thomas' concurrence worth a read if you have the time even outside of Mayflower.

While our appointments clause does not include the words "by Law" as the federal one does, it still follows that any government office must be created by law as was the intent of the Framers of the Federal Constitution (I reference this in a footnote). We must follow their intent by virtue of the Guarantee Clause (we are a Republic, i.e., separation of powers mandate only the Legislature can establish offices, departments, or agencies by law), and the fact that owe allegiance to the Union (Article I, Section 11 of our Constitution).

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-29 04:02 p.m.

cc: @impactiii

@Awesome

(edited)

Awesome pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:36 p.m.

impactiii 2025-01-30 01:34 p.m.

@Awesome

Do you want a reply, further arguments, or are you ready to proceed?

impactiii

MR. INCIPLES’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION BASED ON THE UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENT OF STATE ATTORNEY CHICKEM_TEMDIE CC: @Awesome

@Krispy Chicken Tender

impactiii 2025-01-30 02:02 p.m.

Should have attached this as an exhibit, but contrary to the State's assertion that the PIO exists under the OAG (which it is supposed to, per the Constitution and per the command of the MSC statutes governing the DOJ), the PIO exists as it's own outside office.

impactiii

@Awesome Do you want a reply, further arguments, or are you ready to proceed?

impactiii 2025-01-30 11:33 p.m.

@Awesome

impactiii

@Awesome

Awesome 2025-01-30 11:37 p.m.

I haven't had time yet to review both of your motions & the State's responses; once I do so, I'll let you and the State know whether anything else is required.(edited)

Awesome 2025-01-31 01:00 p.m.

MINUTE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On or before Saturday, February 1, 2025 at 5:00 p.m., 5 months ago, Counsel of Record for the State, Chickem_Tendie, is ORDERED to either (1) submit to the Court a certified copy of United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66 (1986), and to therein identify wherein the quote upon which he relies, that “[t]o persuade the courts to dismiss an indictment, a defendant must, at a minimum, show that the prosecution’s procedural error prejudiced him[,]” State’s Response to Motion to Dismiss Based on Defendant Appointments Clause, at 4, appears; or (2) SHOW CAUSE why sanctions should not be imposed against him and so enter, for filing what appears to be, at first blush, a document substantially or entirely generated by generative artificial intelligence (GAI).

/s/ AwesomePIays

Mayflower District Judge

cc: @impactiii / @Krispy Chicken Tender

(edited)

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-31 08:13 p.m.

Disregard previous reply

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 12:32 a.m.

cc: @Awesome

@impactiii

Krispy Chicken Tender

cc: @Awesome

@impactiii

Awesome 2025-02-01 12:42 a.m.

Counselor, I suggest you stop lying.(edited)

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 12:46 a.m.

Your honor, the exact quote is listed in the case.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1335035796155273226/1335049776491794605/IMG_1928.png?ex=679ec17e&is=679d6ffe&hm=4496674ba0b7b30e732b79b43b9fed71123aa8a90f49ef146b7240be9ce2e349&

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 12:46 a.m.

Krispy Chicken Tender

Click to see attachment.

Awesome 2025-02-01 12:46 a.m.

A clerical error in the filed MTD response led to the accidental addition of quotation marks around the quote upon which the counsel of record relied.

(edited)

Awesome 2025-02-01 12:46 a.m.

This is a blatant lie.

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 12:52 a.m.

Your honor, I ran the text through two ai detectors with varying, but similar results.
https://prnt.sc/5xlV0X3pcLfN
https://prnt.sc/PwV5RY-HgKzI
https://prnt.sc/LLhuW-bVw0ES(edited)

Screenshot

Captured with Lightshot

Screenshot

Captured with Lightshot

Screenshot

Captured with Lightshot

Awesome 2025-02-01 01:02 a.m.

Counselor, I'm going to enter into the record the following excerpt taken from chatroom:

10:12 AM AEST
tactical_pancakes: [1] @Chickem_Temdie broski
[2] That’s a ChatGPT summary
[3] Those things aren’t direct quotes from the freaking case

10:13 AM AEST
Chickem_Temdie: [1] yea they literally aren't supposed to, i never make a new document when writing a response, just copy from the old one
[2] and if i'm not careful this happens

10:14 AM AEST
tactical_pancakes: [1] Broskiiiiiiiii
[2] Not bueno
Chickem_Temdie: I know but do you know what its like trying to create a whole new doc when you get out of class and maybe have to work a shift right after
sadoimpacto: We all know what it's like

10:15 AM AEST
Chickem_Temdie: I really need to work on my time management

10:16 AM AEST
tactical_pancakes: [1] I just wanna know how a ChatGPT summary
[2] Got quoted
[3] I don’t deny that things can get hectic

10:19 AM AEST
Chickem_Temdie: you litearlly (sic) have to rely on gpt for this class

Awesome 2025-02-01 01:04 a.m.

So, which is it: did you (1) forget to enclose a quote with quotation marks or (2) use generative artificial intelligence in whole or substantial part?(edited)

Awesome

Counselor, I'm going to enter into the record the following excerpt taken from chatroom: 10:12 AM AEST tactical_pancakes: [1] @Chickem_Temdie broski ...

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 01:08 a.m.

Your honor, I've completed the requirement to show a certified copy of US v. Mechanik and to identify wherein the quote upon which I relied upon. I do not understand what more is being asked of me. Therefore, I am requesting the substitution of attorney and will be filing a document to state such.

Krispy Chicken Tender

Your honor, I've completed the requirement to show a certified copy of US v. Mechanik and to identify wherein the quote upon which I relied upon. I do not understand what more is ...

Awesome 2025-02-01 01:09 a.m.

Counselor, I'm now ordering you to show cause why you should not be held in contempt. Making a mistake is one thing; lying in response to a show cause order is another.(edited)

Awesome

Counselor, I'm going to enter into the record the following excerpt taken from chatroom: 10:12 AM AEST tactical_pancakes: [1] @Chickem_Temdie broski ...

Awesome 2025-02-01 01:16 a.m.

Also, as a matter of record, Chickem_Temdie submitted a similar motion in another matter, replete with citations to bogus (fictitious) cases, https://canary.discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1333446691415789651/1334795572976287805, for which a similar order has been entered by the Chief Judge. https://canary.discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1333446691415789651/1335040817727013055(edited)

Awesome

Counselor, I'm going to enter into the record the following excerpt taken from chatroom: 10:12 AM AEST tactical_pancakes: [1] @Chickem_Temdie broski ...

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 01:26 a.m.

Your honor, in regards to these messages, at no point did I mention I used or didn't use GAI to generate in whole or substantial part of this response. Having no sense for proof reading, I am relying on tools like grammarly in this case to ensure grammatical errors are mitigated and to ensure the tone of the document stays somewhat constant throughout. However, because I lack the necessary tools and personnel to do a full proof read, it was a genuine mistake on my end to misquote the case and its wording and I apologize for causing so much trouble and complication as a result of not proof reading.

Krispy Chicken Tender

Your honor, in regards to these messages, at no point did I mention I used or didn't use GAI to generate in whole or substantial part of this response. Having no sense for proof re...

Awesome 2025-02-01 01:32 a.m.

Ok, I'm just going to ask you point-blank: did you use generative artificial intelligence (GAI) to partly or wholly generate a response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Based on Appointments Clause?

Awesome

Ok, I'm just going to ask you point-blank: did you use generative artificial intelligence (GAI) to partly or wholly generate a response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Based on Ap...

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 01:34 a.m.

Yes, I used GAI (grammarly), no I did not wholly generate a response to the defendant's MTD based on appointments clause

Krispy Chicken Tender

Yes, I used GAI (grammarly), no I did not wholly generate a response to the defendant's MTD based on appointments clause

Awesome 2025-02-01 01:36 a.m.

Did you partially generate a response?

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 01:36 a.m.

Yes, because that's a fuction of grammarly

Krispy Chicken Tender

Yes, because that's a fuction of grammarly

Awesome 2025-02-01 01:37 a.m.

Ok, how did you (1) come into possession of a copy of a nonexistent case and (2) learn about at least two nonexistent quotations (one from said fictitious case)?(edited)

Awesome

Ok, how did you (1) come into possession of a copy of a nonexistent case and (2) learn about at least two nonexistent quotations (one from said fictitious case)?(edited)

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 01:39 a.m.

Is that an order to respond too?

Krispy Chicken Tender

Is that an order to respond too?

Awesome 2025-02-01 01:39 a.m.

It's a question, in response to your response to the order to show cause.(edited)

Awesome 2025-02-01 01:56 a.m.

Honestly, at most, this would've been a reprimand, had you not repeatedly lied.

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 02:19 a.m.

I apologize ,your honor for the late response, I believe this has become a contempt hearing instead and I would like to request an attorney.(edited)

Krispy Chicken Tender

I apologize ,your honor for the late response, I believe this has become a contempt hearing instead and I would like to request an attorney.(edited)

Awesome 2025-02-01 02:29 a.m.

Alright, that's fine. Who would you like as counsel?

Awesome

Alright, that's fine. Who would you like as counsel?

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 02:31 a.m.

Separate channel first? Or continue in this one

Awesome 2025-02-01 02:32 a.m.

We're continuing here; I don't anticipate this to take long.(edited)

Awesome

We're continuing here; I don't anticipate this to take long.(edited)

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 02:32 a.m.

Are you threatening to hold me in criminal or civil contempt?

Krispy Chicken Tender

Are you threatening to hold me in criminal or civil contempt?

Awesome 2025-02-01 02:39 a.m.

Well, it'd be punitive, so criminal.

Awesome

Well, it'd be punitive, so criminal.

Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 02:43 a.m.

I request @polyrabies and @Reapers as attorneys

Awesome used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-02-01 02:45 a.m.

Case Modified

@Awesome

has added @Reapers to the case channel.

Awesome used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-02-01 02:45 a.m.

Case Modified

@Awesome

has added @polyrabies to the case channel.

impactiii 2025-02-01 02:47 a.m.

@Awesome

You’ll need to appoint an independent prosecutor

impactiii 2025-02-01 02:47 a.m.

If this is criminal contempt

impactiii 2025-02-01 02:47 a.m.

Someone outside the DOJ

impactiii

If this is criminal contempt

Awesome 2025-02-01 02:48 a.m.

No, I won't; it's direct, summary contempt.(edited)

polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:48 a.m.

Your honor respectfully

polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:48 a.m.

this is a criminal contempt hearing

polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:48 a.m.

My clients entitled to due proccess

Awesome

No, I won't; it's direct, summary contempt.(edited)

impactiii 2025-02-01 02:49 a.m.

Fair enough. Some judges consider Discord indirect since it’s not in-game.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:49 a.m.

and we request an unbiased justice

polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:49 a.m.

who will preside

polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:49 a.m.

over this hearing

impactiii

Fair enough. Some judges consider Discord indirect since it’s not in-game.

Awesome 2025-02-01 02:49 a.m.

I'm considering it direct.

Awesome 2025-02-01 02:49 a.m.

since it occurred in the immediate presence of the court.

polyrabies

over this hearing

Awesome 2025-02-01 02:49 a.m.

Your request is denied as meritless.

Awesome 2025-02-01 02:50 a.m.

For direct contempt, your client isn't even entitled to a hearing.

Awesome 2025-02-01 02:50 a.m.

I'm choosing to give him one.

impactiii 2025-02-01 02:50 a.m.

What about my defendant?

impactiii 2025-02-01 02:50 a.m.

And this case

polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:50 a.m.

Okay but contempt has to be willful

polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:51 a.m.

Not sure how this court can even assert and prove that my client actually intentionally misrepresented facts to the court (if he even ever misrepresented facts

impactiii

And this case

Awesome 2025-02-01 02:51 a.m.

We'll proceed once I dispose of this.

impactiii 2025-02-01 02:51 a.m.

Alright

polyrabies

Okay but contempt has to be willful

Awesome 2025-02-01 02:52 a.m.

Your client still hasn't answered my question:

Ok, how did you (1) come into possession of a copy of a nonexistent case and (2) learn about at least two nonexistent quotations (one from said fictitious case)?

Awesome

Your client still hasn't answered my question: Ok, how did you (1) come into possession of a copy of a nonexistent case and (2) learn about at least two nonexistent quotations (o...

polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:52 a.m.

He's responded to the show cause order.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:53 a.m.

And for the record is your question a demand/lawful order

polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:53 a.m.

or just a general question.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:53 a.m.

Because he's responded to the actual order for show cause.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 03:02 a.m.

Regardless, i'd like the record to reflect that:

This court must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that DOJ Prosecutor Chickem_Temdie actually committed Contempt of Court.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 03:03 a.m.

He cannot just be held in contempt over a mere suspicion of wrongdoing

polyrabies

And for the record is your question a demand/lawful order

Awesome 2025-02-01 03:19 a.m.

It's a question. Is your client declining to answer?

Awesome

It's a question. Is your client declining to answer?

polyrabies 2025-02-01 03:33 a.m.

Is my client required to answer?

polyrabies 2025-02-01 03:33 a.m.

If so he will.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 03:33 a.m.

I'll reiterate, if hes required to answer he will answer.

polyrabies

I'll reiterate, if hes required to answer he will answer.

Awesome 2025-02-01 03:38 a.m.

He is not required to answer, but it would be in his interests to do so.

Awesome 2025-02-01 03:39 a.m.

And for the record is your question a demand/lawful order
or just a general question.

I thought this (He is not required to answer) would've been implicit.

Awesome

He is not required to answer, but it would be in his interests to do so.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 03:50 a.m.

No he will not be answering the question, he has showed cause to your ORDER already. I'll reiterate, if hes required to answer he will answer.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:41 a.m.

It's beyond me that this Court wants to hold a DOJ Prosecutor in CRIMINAL CONTEMPT over him accidentally adding quotation marks. My client being accused of misquoting something if even true wouldn't of:

1. obstructed court proceedings
2. violated a court order or local rules
3. inhibited the court process

I see no reason for this court to even consider holding him in contempt

polyrabies

It's beyond me that this Court wants to hold a DOJ Prosecutor in CRIMINAL CONTEMPT over him accidentally adding quotation marks. My client being accused of misquoting something if ...

Awesome 2025-02-01 04:44 a.m.

Your client used generative artificial intelligence, both in this matter and state-of-mayflower-v-adolobee, and then repeatedly lied to the Court instead of coming clean.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:44 a.m.

Respectfully your honor,

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:45 a.m.

How on earth can you come to that conclusion?

polyrabies

How on earth can you come to that conclusion?

Awesome 2025-02-01 04:45 a.m.

Because he cited one nonexistent case and at least two nonexistent quotations.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:45 a.m.

If he even did that

Awesome

Counselor, I'm going to enter into the record the following excerpt taken from chatroom: 10:12 AM AEST tactical_pancakes: [1] @Chickem_Temdie broski ...

Awesome 2025-02-01 04:45 a.m.

and literally admitted to it

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:45 a.m.

how can that prove beyond a reasonable doubt

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:45 a.m.

that

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:45 a.m.

he used AI

Awesome

Counselor, I'm going to enter into the record the following excerpt taken from chatroom: 10:12 AM AEST tactical_pancakes: [1] @Chickem_Temdie broski ...

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:46 a.m.

This is a out of court statement

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:46 a.m.

what relevance

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:46 a.m.

does that have?

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:46 a.m.

I hope you understand, my client has due process rights

Awesome 2025-02-01 04:46 a.m.

Your client admitted to using generative AI.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:46 a.m.

this is a criminal proceeding

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:46 a.m.

In this case?

Awesome 2025-02-01 04:46 a.m.

chatroom

is admissible; it's no different to him admitting to doing it via social media.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:47 a.m.

It's hearsay

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:47 a.m.

and I will pull up the rules of criminal evidence

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:48 a.m.

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1328513983975784470/1329933082165383208/image.png?ex=679e9933&is=679d47b3&hm=5827d450f451d6fc8ff76ec24655e2c772e05e55c0f322c4cc8923705b545eea&=&format=webp&quality=lossless&width=1520&height=533

Awesome 2025-02-01 04:49 a.m.

a confession is clearly exempt from hearsay

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:49 a.m.

How is it a "confession"

Awesome 2025-02-01 04:49 a.m.

I'm not debating this with you, counselor. It is admissible.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:49 a.m.

I'd hope you'd be open for some reconsideration, because it is quite clearly hearsay per the criminal rules of procedure

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:50 a.m.

And even if it was admissable, the statements have no correlation to this case specifically

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:51 a.m.

It's not against the local rules to use AI even if he was using it

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:51 a.m.

AI is a research tool

Awesome

Counselor, I'm going to enter into the record the following excerpt taken from chatroom: 10:12 AM AEST tactical_pancakes: [1] @Chickem_Temdie broski ...

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:55 a.m.

Respectfully, where within this does he ever "admit" hes "using ai"?

polyrabies

I'd hope you'd be open for some reconsideration, because it is quite clearly hearsay per the criminal rules of procedure

Awesome 2025-02-01 04:55 a.m.

It's a statement against interest.(edited)

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:58 a.m.

Just for the record, the justice presiding over this contempt hearing is quite literally the initial accuser of contempt and is also acting as the fact finder.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:58 a.m.

So I'd once again ask, if you're gonna do a contempt hearing, recuse yourself and provide a impartial justice to preside.

polyrabies

So I'd once again ask, if you're gonna do a contempt hearing, recuse yourself and provide a impartial justice to preside.

Awesome 2025-02-01 04:58 a.m.

And, again, your request is meritless and denied.

Awesome 2025-02-01 04:59 a.m.

You offer no basis for concluding this Court is unable to be impartial, beyond hyperbole and speculation.(edited)

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:01 a.m.

https://images-ext-1.discordapp.net/external/NEyLYcvPEWdCMucDwZNjMiWvbmfFz7vGVJwM-AkwWLA/https/i.gyazo.com/386e76c6fe5ee9e7ffb6aa63878a2675.png?format=webp&quality=lossless&width=1576&height=904

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:01 a.m.

I'd also to assert that

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:01 a.m.

its quite evident that

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:01 a.m.

the out of court chats u've admitted are hearsay

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:02 a.m.

no exception applies here

Awesome

You offer no basis for concluding this Court is unable to be impartial, beyond hyperbole and speculation.(edited)

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:02 a.m.

You're literally the accuser and the fact finder within this

Awesome 2025-02-01 05:02 a.m.

That's.. how summary contempt works.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:02 a.m.

My client still has due process rights

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:03 a.m.

He has the right to a fair hearing

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:03 a.m.

there's nothing fair about this when the fact finder is also the accuser

polyrabies

there's nothing fair about this when the fact finder is also the accuser

Awesome 2025-02-01 05:04 a.m.

Your authority for this?

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:04 a.m.

And none of the allegged conduct even warrants summary action, all it could of warranted was a simple correction

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:04 a.m.

of the legal filing

Awesome

Your authority for this?

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:06 a.m.

In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955)

polyrabies

In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955)

Awesome 2025-02-01 05:10 a.m.

That doesn't support your argument.

polyrabies

And none of the allegged conduct even warrants summary action, all it could of warranted was a simple correction

Awesome 2025-02-01 05:10 a.m.

Making a mistake is one thing; lying in response to a show cause order is another.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:10 a.m.

And how can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he "lied"

Awesome 2025-02-01 05:10 a.m.

I have also stated, prior, that had your client simply come clean, this would've been, at most, a reprimand.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:10 a.m.

you aren't behind his PC

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:10 a.m.

you cant see if he opened a AI program

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:11 a.m.

and the statement you admitted is inadmissable

polyrabies

and the statement you admitted is inadmissable

Awesome 2025-02-01 05:22 a.m.

Ok, fine. (1) It was not admitted to "prove the truth of the matter asserted," and (2) even if it was (it wasn't; it was introduced as impeachment), it falls within several established exceptions to the hearsay rule, namely it's a (i) statement against interest, and (ii) spontaneous, self-incriminating statement corroborated by other evidence (the record). See

Chambers v. Mississippi

, 410 U.S. 284, 298-99 (1973) ("The hearsay rule, which has long been recognized and respected by virtually every State, is based on experience and grounded in the notion that untrustworthy evidence should not be presented to the triers of fact. Among the most prevalent of these exceptions is the one applicable to declarations against interest — an exception founded on the assumption that a person is unlikely to fabricate a statement against his own interest at the time it is made.”).(edited)

Awesome

Ok, fine. (1) It was not admitted to "prove the truth of the matter asserted," and (2) even if it was (it wasn't; it was introduced as impeachment), it falls within several establi...(edited)

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:24 a.m.

How is it a "self incriminating statement" if it clearly has no nexus or correlation to the ongoing conduct in question

polyrabies

How is it a "self incriminating statement" if it clearly has no nexus or correlation to the ongoing conduct in question

Awesome 2025-02-01 05:25 a.m.

He literally admits, impliedly or otherwise, to using ChatGPT to write his motion.

Awesome

He literally admits, impliedly or otherwise, to using ChatGPT to write his motion.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:26 a.m.

He doesn't any reasonable individual can conclude from what you've admitted as "evidence", doesn't actually show him making any direct statements relating to this case, what you've admitted just shows him making a vague response to a statement made by an un related individual who has nothing to do with this case where he never even confirms he used AI in this proceeding.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:27 a.m.

And even if he did use chatgpt to write a motion, where's the issue with that?

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:27 a.m.

Chatgpt isnt barred from use by your court room rules or local rules

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:28 a.m.

Simply using chatgpt to write a motion isn't contempt

polyrabies

Simply using chatgpt to write a motion isn't contempt

Awesome 2025-02-01 05:28 a.m.

Again, he's not being held in contempt for merely (alone) using ChatGPT to write the motion; he's being held in contempt for repeatedly lying about it.(edited)

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:29 a.m.

He's being held in contempt cause you think he lied?

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:29 a.m.

How on earth can you conclude he lied

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:29 a.m.

That's all i have to say, it's impossible for anyone here to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the DOJ prosecutor actually LIED and used CHATGPT

Awesome 2025-02-01 05:29 a.m.

He did.

Awesome 2025-02-01 05:29 a.m.

It's not a question.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:30 a.m.

Burden of proof exists for a reason, to combat baseless allegations, which is why a charge has to be substantiated, i dont see how you can possibly substantiate with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually LIED and utilised chatgpt in this specific case.

polyrabies

Burden of proof exists for a reason, to combat baseless allegations, which is why a charge has to be substantiated, i dont see how you can possibly substantiate with evidence beyon...

Awesome 2025-02-01 05:31 a.m.

Alright. I'm going to find your client in criminal contempt. There is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he lied; his prior inconsistent statement, viewed in tandem with the record of state-of-mayflower-v-adolobee (and, whilst I'm mentioning it, this matter), leaves no room for reasonable doubt.(edited)

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:32 a.m.

Okay we will appeal to the supreme court requesting a stay

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:32 a.m.

of up to 72 hours

polyrabies

Okay we will appeal to the supreme court requesting a stay

Awesome 2025-02-01 05:33 a.m.

A stay of what? I haven't even imposed a sentence yet.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:33 a.m.

A stay of the sentence

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:33 a.m.

which you are

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:33 a.m.

gonna impose

Awesome 2025-02-01 05:33 a.m.

There isn't one.

Awesome 2025-02-01 05:33 a.m.

At least not at this point.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:34 a.m.

Okay when can we expect

polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:34 a.m.

a proper ruling

Awesome

Alright. I'm going to find your client in criminal contempt. There is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he lied; his prior inconsistent statement, viewed in tandem with the r...(edited)

Awesome 2025-02-01 05:56 a.m.

I’ll enter a full (paper) order soonish.

polyrabies

a proper ruling

Awesome 2025-02-01 07:00 a.m.

Alright, here’s what I’ve decided to do: I’m going to give your client the proverbial keys to his metaphorical cell. If your client so wishes, I’ll allow him, this once, to purge himself (by that, I mean I’ll enter a sentence of unconditional discharge, which wouldn’t be recorded) of contempt (however, this would not preclude lesser sanctions) by submitting to the Court (1) a written, sincere, unassisted (external or otherwise) apology; and (2) a truthful explanation, without omissions made, for his prior conduct.

This one-time offer expires Saturday, February 1, 2025 at 5:00 p.m., 5 months ago.(edited)

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:01 a.m.

Huh

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:01 a.m.

This is criminal contempt

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:01 a.m.

Not civil

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:01 a.m.

How can he purge himself of a criminal conviction

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:02 a.m.

Can you just explain the offer to me

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:02 a.m.

What does this “purging” actually result in

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:03 a.m.

You’ve already found him in criminal contempt

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:03 a.m.

So what is he actually gonna purge himself of

Awesome 2025-02-01 07:04 a.m.

By purge, I mean I’ll enter a sentence of unconditional discharge.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:05 a.m.

But he’ll still have a criminal record

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:05 a.m.

Regardless we’re not taking any offers or admitting guilt of anything because frankly my clients done nothing wrong

polyrabies

But he’ll still have a criminal record

Awesome 2025-02-01 07:07 a.m.

no..

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:07 a.m.

So can you explain this to me

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:07 a.m.

You’ve found my client in criminal contempt right

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:07 a.m.

Which means he’s been found guilty of a crime

Awesome 2025-02-01 07:08 a.m.

well, not an in-game record anyways.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:08 a.m.

Okay but he’s still been

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:08 a.m.

Found guilty of a crime

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:08 a.m.

How can you purge a conviction

Awesome 2025-02-01 07:12 a.m.

I can’t record a conviction in-game if it’s an unconditional discharge, unless I did something wacky.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:12 a.m.

Well my client would of still been found guilty of a crime

polyrabies

Well my client would of still been found guilty of a crime

Awesome 2025-02-01 07:21 a.m.

Well, it’s up to your client, of course, but I would suggest talking it over with him, as the offer is quite generous.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:21 a.m.

It’s not generous

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:21 a.m.

It’s forcing him to admit guilt because there’s no evidence to suggest guilt anyway therefore

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:21 a.m.

We aren’t accepting

Toby 2025-02-01 07:21 a.m.

Poly just go talk to your client

polyrabies

We aren’t accepting

Toby 2025-02-01 07:22 a.m.

Courts going to need your client to affirm that

Toby

Courts going to need your client to affirm that

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:22 a.m.

They don’t he’s not taking a plea deal

Awesome 2025-02-01 07:22 a.m.

It’s not.. a plea deal.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:22 a.m.

He’s being given a offer which I can decline

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:22 a.m.

As his counsel

polyrabies

They don’t he’s not taking a plea deal

Toby 2025-02-01 07:22 a.m.

I never said it was that

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:23 a.m.

But your acting as if his response is required

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:23 a.m.

When reality is it isn’t

Toby 2025-02-01 07:23 a.m.

But I think the judge would like to know that your client knows what's going in

Toby 2025-02-01 07:23 a.m.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:23 a.m.

Difference between a need and a want

Toby 2025-02-01 07:23 a.m.

Up to the judge, purely a suggestion

Toby 2025-02-01 07:25 a.m.

Also might I remind you it is ultimately up to your client to decline or accept offers

Awesome 2025-02-01 07:25 a.m.

He can deny it on behalf of his client, but the offer stands.

Toby

Also might I remind you it is ultimately up to your client to decline or accept offers

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:25 a.m.

Not true

Awesome

Alright, here’s what I’ve decided to do: I’m going to give your client the proverbial keys to his metaphorical cell. If your client so wishes, I’ll allow him, this once, to purge h...(edited)

Awesome 2025-02-01 07:25 a.m.

cc: @Krispy Chicken Tender

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:27 a.m.

Just so my client is aware the offer will not change the fact that this court has found him guilty of a crime

polyrabies

Not true

Toby 2025-02-01 07:31 a.m.

I'm not carrying this on further but holy lord yes it is. You can reject offers on his behalf but it is up to him to ultimately decide

Toby

I'm not carrying this on further but holy lord yes it is. You can reject offers on his behalf but it is up to him to ultimately decide

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:31 a.m.

Sure it is, but you're wording it and implying that he needs to affirm every denial of an offer himeslf

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:31 a.m.

which isnt true

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:31 a.m.

I am his counsel I can decline an offer on his behalf

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:32 a.m.

thats the bottom line of this, the presiding judge agrees

polyrabies

Sure it is, but you're wording it and implying that he needs to affirm every denial of an offer himeslf

Toby 2025-02-01 07:32 a.m.

No, I'm purely saying that I'm sure the court would appreciate your client showing he understands what's going on here other then his counsel

Toby 2025-02-01 07:32 a.m.

Anyways nothing further

Toby 2025-02-01 07:32 a.m.

Let's not flood

Toby 2025-02-01 07:32 a.m.

Stop typing

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:33 a.m.

You worded it as if it was a requirement for my client to affirm it, that's my last response so the record can have an accurate reflection of whats happening.

Awesome

Alright, here’s what I’ve decided to do: I’m going to give your client the proverbial keys to his metaphorical cell. If your client so wishes, I’ll allow him, this once, to purge h...(edited)

Awesome 2025-02-01 07:36 a.m.

Alright, to clarify the offer: (1) no conviction will be recorded, and (2) a sentence of unconditional discharge will be entered.

Awesome 2025-02-01 07:36 a.m.

I can’t physically record a conviction.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:36 a.m.

Okay just to make sure so we're both on the same page

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:37 a.m.

your "purging" will not change the fact that you've found him guilty of contempt of court?

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:38 a.m.

And when you say "no conviction will be recorded", is the ruling that you'll publicise in rulings for over 1000 server members to see asserting that my Client has been convicted of a crime not count as a record?

polyrabies

your "purging" will not change the fact that you've found him guilty of contempt of court?

Awesome 2025-02-01 07:38 a.m.

It won’t change the fact that he was in contempt; no conviction will be recorded, and a sentence of unconditional discharge will enter.

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:38 a.m.

Or will you not post a ruling?

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:38 a.m.

Just so we're aware here

Awesome 2025-02-01 07:39 a.m.

Well, if I enter a sentence of unconditional discharge, without a conviction recorded, I hardly see much point in writing a several page document.(edited)

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:39 a.m.

because a record refers to anything officially produced by this court reflecting my clients conviction

polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:39 a.m.

So records of his convinction will still exist?

polyrabies

So records of his convinction will still exist?

Awesome 2025-02-01 07:43 a.m.

Like I said, it won’t change the fact that your client was in contempt. If someone was so inclined, they could scroll through hundreds of messages and find the Court’s show cause order, but I think that unlikely, to say the least.(edited)